The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
23rd December 2016
#31
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanator
What you guys talk about is the effective length of a line array
This is actually determined by the wavelength.
So for example to have a Line Array at 100Hz you would need a minimum length of Array of 3.4meters. Because that is the wavelenght of 100hz. Now to make this work for distance you would need it even longer. That doesnt mean a shorter array does not work. It just drops SPL quicker over distance. Line Array theory is a little more complex then just saying this is a line array or not.
I'm pretty sure the array needs to be more than 1x wavelength long to get the 3dB per doubling/halving of distance.

Here's some reading for those interested in line array theory: Can Line Arrays Form Cylindrical Waves? A Line Array Theory Q & A

Chris
23rd December 2016
#32
Gear Addict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc

I have also done tests comparing L'Acoustics ARCS to dv dosc boxes,
Sorry to burst your bubble but you know that ARCS is line array, right? Albeit fixed angle, but it is line source all the same
23rd December 2016
#33
Registered User

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris661
I'm pretty sure the array needs to be more than 1x wavelength long to get the 3dB per doubling/halving of distance.

Here's some reading for those interested in line array theory: Can Line Arrays Form Cylindrical Waves? A Line Array Theory Q & A

Chris
Oh yes absolutely, you are correct. I was trying to point out that a Line Array that s very short will be in effect a Point-source at lower frequencies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamC
You guys will need to explain these statements. I have done extensive tests on systems that can either be arrayed horizontally or vertically and have never heard the 'better' than sound that you guys are talking about.
Actually I do not say or believe that either sound better. I was referring to the interaction between two cabinets. 2 Line-array Cabinets will interact better between each other then two Point-source Cabinets interact with each other. And therefore won't exhibit comb filtering and cancelations as much as two Point-source Cabinets would. So in a direct comparison. If two line array cabinets would sufficiently cover a certain area they would do this better then if you would use 2 Point-source Cabinets that would be arrayed.
However most of the times a single Point-source will cover a larger area then two Line Array cabinets would. And then of course a single Point-source works better then maybe 2 Line array cabinets would.
I am talking about arrays of Systems and not left right or so. So a Cluster of two Point sources or an Array of 2 Line-array cabinets or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamC
I have also done tests comparing L'Acoustics ARCS to dv dosc boxes, Mater CQ and Milo boxes and came to the conclusion that when the application calls for a point-source system, a point-source system will always work better than line-array boxes posing as point-source boxes. I'll be willing to hear any technical explanation behind your statements however.
\
That is absolutely true, And I don't think I have disputed this. However ARCS are constant curvature Boxes that array in fixed angles and do actually have a waveguide to allow for HF coupling. This is technology derived from Line Arrays. The CQ I don't actually know but it appears to not do so well if you put two right next to each other.
The Trick is actually to figure out how much SPL and Coverage one needs. Then you either choose a single Point-source or multiple Line Array Cabinets to achieve the coverage.
But again 2 Point-sources that are arrayed will have comb filtering and there is no reason a Line Array that would be capable to cover the same area should be inferior.
23rd December 2016
#34
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by edva
In practice, the better box wins.
Exactly...the claim that a short vertical-array will automatically sound better than a properly setup point-source system is news to me. Furthermore, a good point-source box/system will offer better pattern control and directivity than than a short vertical array in most situations.
23rd December 2016
#35
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by germanator
Actually I do not say or believe that either sound better. I was referring to the interaction between two cabinets. 2 Line-array Cabinets will interact better between each other then two Point-source Cabinets interact with each other. And therefore won't exhibit comb filtering and cancelations as much as two Point-source Cabinets would. So in a direct comparison. If two line array cabinets would sufficiently cover a certain area they would do this better then if you would use 2 Point-source Cabinets that would be arrayed.
However most of the times a single Point-source will cover a larger area then two Line Array cabinets would. And then of course a single Point-source works better then maybe 2 Line array cabinets would.
I am talking about arrays of Systems and not left right or so. So a Cluster of two Point sources or an Array of 2 Line-array cabinets or more.
As a broad, general statement this is still not universally correct because it assumes that all point-source boxes have wide dispersion angles, and will not fit in a tight array, which of course is not a general rule. Some point-source systems were not designed to be in a tight horizontal array, like turbo sound Floodlight and Flashlight systems. while there are some very narrow horn loaded systems several Meyer systems, Nexo Alpha systems etc. that were designed for tight arrays.

Quote:
However ARCS are constant curvature Boxes that array in fixed angles and do actually have a waveguide to allow for HF coupling. This is technology derived from Line Arrays. The CQ I don't actually know but it appears to not do so well if you put two right next to each other.
Some older Meyer and EAW boxes seem to dispute the claim in bold...plus, this system will technically not perform as a line-array system because of the fixed angle which renders the system practically useless if you use more than three boxes. It is basically a point-source system that can be turned on it's side to look like a line array-system, and we can basically do this with ANY point-source system that is designed for tight arrays. This is really only useful in certain very specific situations where you need relatively narrow horizontal and a lot of vertical coverage.

The CQ2 boxes have precise pattern control and can be used in tight arrays, the CQ1 which also has precise pattern control however was not designed to be in tight arrays.

Quote:
The Trick is actually to figure out how much SPL and Coverage one needs. Then you either choose a single Point-source or multiple Line Array Cabinets to achieve the coverage.
But again 2 Point-sources that are arrayed will have comb filtering and there is no reason a Line Array that would be capable to cover the same area should be inferior.
All point-source boxes will NOT have comb filtering if they are arrayed properly...an array can be spaced or tight and if the boxes are arrayed as designed there shouldn't be more comb filtering than with a line-array system...will the ARCS system, the Meyer JM-1P, Renkus-Heinz ST/STX series, Nexo Alpha, or any number of other systems that were designed to be tightly arrayed be more prone to comb-filtering than vertical arrays? Turbo sound Floodlight and d&b C7 boxes were not designed to be in tight arrays, but if they are spaced (ARRAYED) correctly, they too will not have comb filtering.

Boxes designed as part of a line-array system will NOT perform as well as point-source boxes in any situation where narrow coverage and precise pattern control are necessary. The horizontal coverage from an array that is three ARCS wide for example will not be as wide as any line-array system which are usually between 80° and 120° wide.

I see that the marketing guys did a very good job...
23rd December 2016
#36
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by germanator
It should say Line array elements. Now, several Line array elements together could potentially still be short enough to not exhibit Line Array criteria, mainly 3db level loss per doubling of distance as opposed to 6db level loss per doubling of distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by germanator
Oh yes absolutely, you are correct. I was trying to point out that a Line Array that s very short will be in effect a Point-source at lower frequencies.
I think there's a huge point of confusion with this whole matter of "3dB per doubling of distance" characteristic that's advertised as an attribute of line arrays - put simply, I'm of the opinion that it's complete BS.

The 3dB figure is based on the assumption that a line-array produces cylindrical waves - and this claim has been around for decades in association with various column-shaped loudspeakers. While it's certainly solid theory that a cylindrical wave can be formed by a number of point-sources in a line, I don't think that in practice the individual drivers are ever sufficient in number and/or the line is long enough, for this to actually occur. I have personally measured for this in a couple of domestic floor-to-ceiling "line array" designs that use a ton of drivers and claim cylindrical-wave behavior . . . and their propagation characteristic was 6dB/doubling-of-distance just like everything else.

It's important to remember that line arrays work just like all other gradient arrays (i.e. cardioid subs), and deliver their coverage pattern based on their composite far-field directivity, NOT because of any special propagation characteristics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc
As a broad, general statement this is still not universally correct because it assumes that all point-source boxes have wide dispersion angles, and will not fit in a tight array, which of course is not a general rule . . .

. . . It is basically a point-source system that can be turned on it's side to look like a line array-system, and we can basically do this with ANY point-source system that is designed for tight arrays. This is really only useful in certain very specific situations where you need relatively narrow horizontal and a lot of vertical coverage.

All point-source boxes will NOT have comb filtering if they are arrayed properly...an array can be spaced or tight and if the boxes are arrayed as designed there shouldn't be more comb filtering than with a line-array system...
These are all excellent points, and examples of the fact that the difference between what we call a "point-source" box and a "line-array" box is wholly based on their directivity characteristics, and thus the types of arrays with which they're well suited to be used in . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc
Boxes designed as part of a line-array system will NOT perform as well as point-source boxes in any situation where narrow coverage and precise pattern control are necessary. The horizontal coverage from an array that is three ARCS wide for example will not be as wide as any line-array system which are usually between 80° and 120° wide.
And this is exactly at the heart of the OP's original question . . . the directivity characteristics of speakers that are designed to work well as line arrays simply don't deliver very impressive performance when used singly or in small clusters.
23rd December 2016
#37
Lives for gear

I'm going to side with Sam and Kirkus on this.

What I see in the LA : PS dialogue is that almost everyone voicing an opinion has no real knowledge of how EITHER system actually works...or doesn't work. Beyond the probability that most systems are subject to compromise due to time and logistics ( and budget), the arguments for or against one or the other are most often "supported" by mere marketing hype, urban myth or "faith-based physics".

I'm not in total favor of one or the other. Application will dictate what's best and the person who is thoroughly grounded in physics and acoustics will have an open mind as to what to spec for best results. Of course, best results will depend on many factors...
24th December 2016
#38
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc
You guys will need to explain these statements. I have done extensive tests on systems that can either be arrayed horizontally or vertically and have never heard the 'better' than sound that you guys are talking about.

I have also done tests comparing L'Acoustics ARCS to dv dosc boxes, Mater CQ and Milo boxes and came to the conclusion that when the application calls for a point-source system, a point-source system will always work better than line-array boxes posing as point-source boxes. I'll be willing to hear any technical explanation behind your statements however.
I just wanted to say, that the difference in sound quality between line array boxes and normal point source boxes of similar quality is smaller than a difference between two boxes in different quality ranges. For example, 4 D&B V series array modules per side will at least in my opinion usually sound better than any point source speaker made by JBL.
I do however agree, that a point source speaker of similar quality will generally sound better when you need that kind of coverage.
24th December 2016
#39
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetam
I just wanted to say, that the difference in sound quality between line array boxes and normal point source boxes of similar quality is smaller than a difference between two boxes in different quality ranges. For example, 4 D&B V series array modules per side will at least in my opinion usually sound better than any point source speaker made by JBL.
So, a really good system will perform better than a not so good system...Isn't that generally the same with everything...consoles, cars, computers etc.?
24th December 2016
#40
Lives for gear

Part of how line array speakers work is the reshaping of the wavefront to be more linear at the horn exit. Even when not part of a large enough array to achieve proper line array effect, it still achieves several beneficial effects. The OP hasn't spoken up so we can't be sure to what degree he needs a proper line array or just speakers with very narrow vertical dispersion and/or decent throw from a small box. I say people who know proper line array effect aren't confused about whether they need it or point source.
24th December 2016
#41
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Part of how line array speakers work is the reshaping of the wavefront to be more linear at the horn exit. Even when not part of a large enough array to achieve proper line array effect, it still achieves several beneficial effects.
This is not unique to line-array loudspeakers, this is a feature of good horn design. Sound does not care if it's a line array or point source box, If the horn or waveguide does not sound good, the box/system won't sound good either.
24th December 2016
#42
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Part of how line array speakers work is the reshaping of the wavefront to be more linear at the horn exit. Even when not part of a large enough array to achieve proper line array effect, it still achieves several beneficial effects. The OP hasn't spoken up so we can't be sure to what degree he needs a proper line array or just speakers with very narrow vertical dispersion and/or decent throw from a small box. I say people who know proper line array effect aren't confused about whether they need it or point source.
Exactly what is "proper line array effect"?
24th December 2016
#43
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc
So, a really good system will perform better than a not so good system...Isn't that generally the same with everything...consoles, cars, computers etc.?
It isn't just that, but also that a quality system can easily beat a "proper" system in this case.
You can for example cram more flight cases in the cheapest van than you can in the most expensive Ferrari - proper tool wins over the quality one.
Even with microphones, we usually don't reach for the best transducers, but for the ones that have a proper polar pattern and often also proper frequency response for the job.
24th December 2016
#44
Gear Head
Sorry to start a topic and just kind of abandon it. Happy to see all the advice, enjoying reading through the discussion. On a side note, MOJO filters a bit back implied I (as the op) was probably asking about rcf as their HDL 10 and 20 series, although, just to clarify, I am actually looking at their HT weatherproof point source array able boxes, though the hdl20 is something I'd consider (and I do know the implications of buying all the proper rigging hardware) Thanks for all the input!
24th December 2016
#45
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetam
It isn't just that, but also that a quality system can easily beat a "proper" system in this case.
You can for example cram more flight cases in the cheapest van than you can in the most expensive Ferrari - proper tool wins over the quality one.
Even with microphones, we usually don't reach for the best transducers, but for the ones that have a proper polar pattern and often also proper frequency response for the job.
We don't have an argument here...unless I'm missing something. Excuse me but I really don't remember arguing that an expensive tool is better than the right tool in any situation.

My argument has always been that when you need a point-source system, a line array will never be the 'best' option. Obviously, I'm not going to compare a Meyer Sound Milo system to a little MI box, that would be ridiculous.
25th December 2016
#46
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyllys
Exactly what is "proper line array effect"?
Ask Dutchy. If you both need clarification I'm happy to prepare a quote.
25th December 2016
#47
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyllys
Exactly what is "proper line array effect"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Ask Dutchy. If you both need clarification I'm happy to prepare a quote.
The point is that such terms need definition. Only you know what you mean by this. There is every indication that it means SOMETHING, but WHAT?

Popular understanding is ill-defined and skewed beyond belief by marketing hype. Using un- or ill-defined vagueries such as "proper line array effect" can only cloud any discussion. So please tell us what you mean or cite some published definition or specs from a reputable industry source.

Here's an example from the industry:

http://meyersound.com/pdf/support/pa...line_array.pdf
25th December 2016
#48
Lives for gear

I thought the line array effect was when some youngster posts a new thread online, asking about buying a line array, and everything subsequently goes tits up in the now familiar way...

After a few posts where folks ask said person why they think they need a line array, we then get 5 - 10 pages derailed via lots of strong opinions, and after much wailing and gnashing of teeth - everyone agrees a pair of SM80s are all the speaker anyone will ever need!

Job done, and another great round of publicity for the people with the big horns
26th December 2016
#49
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Ask Dutchy. If you both need clarification I'm happy to prepare a quote.
"Proper line array effect" is wrong terminology from your side once again, "line-source behaviour" would have been a much better description. I'd love to hear your clarification though.

I am convinced that consequently using correct terminology helps prevent a lot of mistakes and miscommunication. Also, it forces you to think about what you're doing, which in my case lead to the structuring of my workflow and the ease with which I understand and internalise things like signal flow in complex systems

Dutchy
26th December 2016
#50
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo filters
I thought the line array effect was when some youngster posts a new thread online, asking about buying a line array, and everything subsequently goes tits up in the now familiar way...

After a few posts where folks ask said person why they think they need a line array, we then get 5 - 10 pages derailed via lots of strong opinions, and after much wailing and gnashing of teeth - everyone agrees a pair of SM80s are all the speaker anyone will ever need!

Job done, and another great round of publicity for the people with the big horns
And hopefully somebody learns something or at least is motivated to research the topic more because of the discussion...we can learn a lot when we discuss things especially when the discussion is sensible.

There are only two options to not having a discussion...agree with every post, or not taking part in the thread.
2nd January 2017
#51
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchy15
"Proper line array effect" is wrong terminology from your side once again, "line-source behaviour" would have been a much better description. I'd love to hear your clarification though.

I am convinced that consequently using correct terminology helps prevent a lot of mistakes and miscommunication. Also, it forces you to think about what you're doing, which in my case lead to the structuring of my workflow and the ease with which I understand and internalise things like signal flow in complex systems

Dutchy
As long as speaker cabinets which, no matter how many there are, cannot achieve line-source behaviour are being named line array speakers, the misnomer is going to persist. Take it up with QSC, Peavey, Yorkville, etc.

I choose to identify line array cabinets the same way everyone in the MI grade market is being told how to identify them. I do so because that includes 99% of musicians, aka the vast majority of my client base. I stand to benefit more by relating to them on their terms. If you stand to benefit more by stomping on everyone who refers to KLA's as line array speakers then more power to you. Don't expect me to change my habits.

Meanwhile the doubling of SPL, electrical signal, and perceived loudness are considered 3dB, 6dB, and 10dB repectively. Contradictory terms are at the heart of our craft. They are here to stay, and there's more to come. Buckle up.
2nd January 2017
#52
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
I choose to identify line array cabinets the same way everyone in the MI grade market is being told how to identify them. I do so because that includes 99% of musicians, aka the vast majority of my client base.
Well, lucky me for not having your client base I guess?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Meanwhile the doubling of SPL, electrical signal, and perceived loudness are considered 3dB, 6dB, and 10dB repectively. Contradictory terms are at the heart of our craft. They are here to stay, and there's more to come. Buckle up.
At the heart of your craft for sure, more vague stuff right above this text...
The doubling of SPL? In which situation?
The doubling of electrical signal can result in an increase of either 3dB or 6dB, depending on whether you double the voltage or power.
The doubling of perceived loudness is roughly 10dB indeed.

I have already explained to you why I try to avoid contradictory terms as much as possible so I won't do so again. If you are running a succesful business by doing things your way then good luck to you, I'm just trying to avoid newcomers from picking up wrong habits.

Dutchy

P.s.; In case you're wondering whether I think I'm right and you are wrong; I do think I'm right, to me facts make more sense than slick sales talk.

Last edited by Dutchy15; 3rd January 2017 at 10:27 PM..
3rd January 2017
#53
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Contradictory terms are at the heart of our craft. They are here to stay, and there's more to come. Buckle up.
Science and technology are at the heart of everything we do, and we can't have a meaningful discussion about topics relating to scientific concepts using 'made-up' and 'ill-defined' terminology.

The persistent use of the correct and precise terminology should be of special importance to people who wan to call themselves ENGINEERS. Especially if this will prevent misunderstanding and confusion. This practice is only going to persist if people who claim to, (and should) know better, succumb to using made-up terms...
4th January 2017
#54
Lives for gear

As long as speaker cabinets which, no matter how many there are, cannot achieve line-source behaviour are being named line array speakers, the misnomer is going to persist. Take it up with QSC, Peavey, Yorkville, etc.

Woah, deja vu... Now present an argument that gets past something I've already said. It's pretty obvious the thread starter isn't even reading any of this anyway. We might as well be exchanging muffin recipes. Do you "ENGINEERS" understand the concept called productivity?
4th January 2017
#55
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
As long as speaker cabinets which, no matter how many there are, cannot achieve line-source behaviour are being named line array speakers, the misnomer is going to persist. Take it up with QSC, Peavey, Yorkville, etc.
And as long as people like you aren't bothering, it'll never get better. It's a bit like saying we shouldn't try to avoid global warming because the amount a single person can contribute barely makes a difference anyway. It took me a while, but I guess this is American thinking; "why would I care? I'm just fine right here!".

Dutchy
4th January 2017
#56
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
As long as speaker cabinets which, no matter how many there are, cannot achieve line-source behaviour are being named line array speakers, the misnomer is going to persist. Take it up with QSC, Peavey, Yorkville, etc.
It will only persist if people who should know better don't correct these errors and succumb to the ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Woah, deja vu... Now present an argument that gets past something I've already said.
It's false and promotes ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
Do you "ENGINEERS" understand the concept called productivity?
Of course we do, we all live and work in the same world you do...we tour, we gig, we own production companies, we plan and manage tours, etc., and its always been more efficient and productive when we use standard and accepted terminology when working with other professionals.

I don't understand what's more productive about using ill-defined and made up terms that are not generally accepted or understood by everyone. I also don't understand the position that the people who know better should allow themselves to be led by the ignorant.
4th January 2017
#57
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchy15
It took me a while, but I guess this is American thinking; "why would I care? I'm just fine right here!".
Dutchy
a bit of an over-generalization, IMHO.
4th January 2017
#58
Lives for gear

My point is the first step in making any meaningful progress reversing the misnomer is to petition the MI grade speaker manufacturers like QSC, Yorkville, and Peavey to stop using the term "line array speaker" to identify speakers that cannot possibly achieve line-source behavior. IMO that is a waste of time, and nothing short of that is going to make a dent. I don't make a habit of misleading people about line-source properties, I only refer to speakers with line-array characteristics by the name that's on the box, just like every other literate layman. Repeating myself again, I also think it's wrong to refer to electret condensers just as "condensers" as if they're comparable to proper externally polarized condensers, but that's another losing battle.

And btw doubling voltage does double the power. 40V at 5A is 200W, 80V at 5A is 400W. That's 6dB of electrical gain, resulting in 3dB increased SPL assuming the system efficiency remains equal. Quote all the textbooks you want, pull out an SPL meter, turn up the master fader 6dB on either an analog or digital console, you'll get 41.4% more voltage and 41.4% more current resulting in 100% more power, but you only get 3dB more SPL, not 6. Similarly, if a speaker is 6dB SPL less sensitive than another, it takes 4x the power to match the outputs, not 2x.

In all three cases I'm not the jerk that made it that way, take it up with them. Even if you convince me to stop using those conventions, it won't make the slightest difference. We may call ourselves engineers, but in reality it's a craft, not purely applied science. Engineers don't have to extrapolate from inconsistent data nearly as much as we do. You should be thankful that bridges aren't built with anywhere near as much guesswork as our mixes.
4th January 2017
#59
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
It's pretty obvious the thread starter isn't even reading any of this anyway. We might as well be exchanging muffin recipes. Do you "ENGINEERS" understand the concept called productivity?
In fact, I am still here. I have been following the arguments on this thread, and frankly, have learned a bit from it. that being said, I really have no input at this point so reading along is about all I can and will do.

-Ryan
4th January 2017
#60
Lives for gear

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
My point is the first step in making any meaningful progress reversing the misnomer is to petition the MI grade speaker manufacturers like QSC, Yorkville, and Peavey to stop using the term "line array speaker" to identify speakers that cannot possibly achieve line-source behavior.
Thing is, they only use the term as a marketing 'trick' to reel in people who don't know better. If they know the 'trick' won't work they'll stop using those misleading terminology when describing their products, nobody has to petition them. Apparently, the general thought is that any loudspeaker that can be turned on its side, (like the L'Acoustics ARCS) are considered line-array loudspeakers, which of course is false, and we only perpetuate the falsehood and add confusion to boot when we misuse these terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2SPL
We may call ourselves engineers, but in reality it's a craft, not purely applied science. Engineers don't have to extrapolate from inconsistent data nearly as much as we do. You should be thankful that bridges aren't built with anywhere near as much guesswork as our mixes.
I've long maintained that mixing audio is not engineering and that sound mixers are not any more engineers than bush-doctors are actually doctors...a lot of people here don't agree.

I don't know about you, but my mixes aren't built on "guesswork", I always know what I want to achieve and how to get there. The fact that I don't always achieve my goal has nothing to do with guessing, it has to do with the factors I don't have control over, the tools I'm using, the talent I'm working with, the weather etc., which by the way is exactly the situation engineers often find themselves in.
Top Mentioned Products
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
• The ability to reply to and create new discussions
• Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
• Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
• Access to members-only sub forum discussions
• Access to members-only Chat Room
• Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD \$20/year
• Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
• Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.

Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump